Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

absolem

Stillhere, i understand your point regarding staying on topic but i could not resist in pointing out taht one action by some does not equal the same action..or reaction by others. such is politics and i think you will agree that politics has certainly tainted the honest science that should define the physical world around us.

Stillhere

Stillhere

absolem

Stillhere, i am familiar with Harry and his postings. he is correct in his points. his observation that the politicians job is to get elected spotlights the complexity of representing all interests. speaking a truth does not always lend itself to be an assertion of superiority. i do not read his statement in that fashion.

Stillhere

Stillhere

Stillhere

(PhysOrg****) -- Half of the globe has warmed at least one half of one degree Fahrenheit (0.3 C) in the past 30 years, while half of that -- a full quarter of the globe -- warmed at least one full degree Fahrenheit (0.6 C), according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

So if the admitted margin of error is greater than the supposed warming isn't that a problem for your warming ilk?

Stillhere

Stillhere

Stillhere

Q. How accurate are the GISS results (tables, graphs)? A. The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data. Accurate error estimates are hard to obtain. However, it is likely that the largest contribution to the margin of error is given by the temporal and spatial data gaps. That particular margin was estimated as follows: All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data. Then the calculations were repeated after discarding model data where the corresponding observations were missing. Comparisons of the two results were used to obtain an estimate for that margin of error. Assuming that the other inaccuracies might about double that estimate yielded the error bars for global annual means drawn in this graph, i.e., for recent years the error bar for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, for years around 1900 it is about ±0.1°C. NASSA WEBSITE